Friday, June 20, 2008

Royal Assent given to the Treaty of Lisbon

'La Reine le veult', proclaims the Royal Assent in Norman French. It passed by with scarcely a mention, and with little understanding of its significance. While the show ran for weeks on the House of Commons, and notable Peers spent a few days in the limelight, strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage, they are now heard no more, for the Royal Seal has been bestowed, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has given her assent to the Treaty of Lisbon - the EU Constitution - which will come into force on 1st January 2009.

One of the most significant aspects of the treaties of Rome, Maastricht, and Lisbon concerns the constitutional position of the Monarch. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I stated: ‘To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to that of Christ the King of Kings.’ Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

The Treaty of Maastricht made the Queen subject to the European Union and a citizen of that Union. As a citizen of a different political entity and being subject to past and future judgements of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal, her role as a constitutional monarch has been put into doubt. By the treaty, this Court was confirmed in authority over her courts, in which she was not previously arraignable. Her status as a citizen of the EU has rendered her, like the rest of the British people, ‘subject to the duties imposed thereby’.

The Privy Counsellor’s Oath, to which all prime ministers are sworn, is a promise ‘To bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign...persons...or states.’ While there is no doubt that this oath was breached at Maastricht, the situation over Lisbon is somewhat more grave because Lisbon is a constitution.

A country cannot have two constitutions. The laws and constitution of the United Kingdom are diametrically opposed by European laws and the European Constitution. One has to submit to the other, and, as is observed and clearly stated, the Lisbon Treaty ‘takes primacy’.

If the EU Constitution is superior to the British Constitution, at the point the Treaty was given Royal Assent the British Constitution was abolished. Since the EU is a military union, it has the means at its disposal to carry out its objectives.

The politicians are, of course, to blame. And so are the Lords – temporal and spiritual – and so is the judiciary.

But let us be clear.

Her Majesty the Queen has received petitions from the Lords, thousands upon thousands of letters from her subjects, and sworn affidavits withholding and withdrawing allegiance and obedience to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, until such time as she is free to exercise her lawful authority.

And still she gives her assent to a Bill about which she can be in no doubt with regard to its contentious nature, the illegality of its implementation following the Irish rejection, or its illegitimacy under our Common Law birthright.

Is Her Majesty a committed Europhile? Is she complicit in this whole sordid agenda of ‘ever closer union’ to create a country called Europe? Is she guilty of placing her people in bondage to a foreign, unelected and unaccountable power?

And if not, why does she not follow the example of David Davis and abdicate on a point of principle, and thereby precipitate a constitutional crisis, the outcome of which would be a referendum to let the people decide?

36 Comments:

You have to remember that the greater part of her ancestry (at least on her father's side, and certainly on her husband's) is German.

And whatever may have been the formal position, the Hanoverian dynasty, which now misleadingly styles itself "Windsor", was imported in 1715 at the behest of Parliament. It has thus always been subordinate to Parliament; and, for better or worse, Parliament has chosen to subordinate itself to Brussels. Don't blame the queen.

Frankly, I am feeling rather ill just at this moment; a deep feeling of sickness in my stomach. I am truly bewildered. Too many things are simply not making any sense. I and my compatriots, have been deliberately and wantonly deceived, and for what ultimate purpose? Who shall be the beneficiaries?

Your Grace ... It passed by with scarcely a mention ... do we know when? Do you have a date?

Has our Queen been blackmailed? Has our Royal Family been blackmailed?

And furthermore, who lies behind the EU Commission, for mark my words, that cabal is not driving this project! There is a darker force steering the western world to a very dark future, unless something is done to halt this runaway train.

It is purely by chance that world's poorest nations also happen to be best endowed with natural resources. These regions are also the ones with growing population. The fear among European ruling families, increasingly, integrating with economic and military might of the United States, was that if the poor nations became developed, the abundant natural resources, especially oil, gas, and strategic minerals and metals, may become scarcer for the white population. That situation was unacceptable to the white ruling elite.

The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming and the agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines.

The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people." How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae.

He describes how the Rockefellers guided the US agriculture policy, used their powerful tax-free foundations worldwide to train an army of bright young scientists in hitherto unknown field of microbiology. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose.

The "Green Revolution" was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil and gas based agriculture inputs in which Rockefeller's had main interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control.

In the US unlabelled GM foods were introduced in 1993 and that 70% of the supermarket foods contain GMOs in varying proportions in what should rightly be called world's largest biological experiment on humans. While Engdahl has clearly stated that the thrust of US Government and the agi-biz is control over food especially in the third world, he has left it to the readers to deduce that American and European citizens are also target of that grand agenda. And there are more lethal weapons in the arsenal: Terminator seeds, Traitor seeds, and the ability to destroy small independent farmers at will in any part of the world, and these are powerfully presented in the book. Engdahl provides hard evidences for these seeds of final destructionand utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known.

All Credit Card, Amazon, eBay, and PayPal transactions in the United States of America to be reported to the Five Turkic Jews running the fancifully named Department of Homeland Security >>> LINK

The Official version of the 9-11 WTC Attacks have been totally rejected by Members of the Japanese Diet, and a recent debate almost caused a Constitutional Crisis there. It would seem very few people outside of the USA and Britain still believes there was no involvement of the US Government, or its security apparatus, in bringing about the demolition of three buildings on that day: Towers: 1, 2, and 3, and the macabre deaths of almost 3,000 innocent people. Several people, including a NYPD Police Officer, have testified they saw Israeli agents filming the event as it played out, and of sharing high-fives when the towers fell. These five Israelis flew back to Tel Aviv the next day. Furthermore, on either the 10th September, or on the infamous day itself, Prime Minister Olmert paid a flying visit to New York City and was met by another Jew: the City's Mayor, Guilliani.

They keep changing (Anglicising) their names presumably so they can operate with impunity. Those who dare investigate all these mysterious links, patterns, and hidden connections are labelled 'anti-Semitic.'

What is happening in the US today, has (as we know) already begun in Britain, and the same ruses and egregious lies are being employed to trick the populace into accepting what amount to unadulterated fascist policies.

The "War on Terror" is a Jewish Canard. I say 'Jewish' because when you examine all the key players in the Bush Administration who are actually in control of this policy (either as Departmental agents, or as neo-Con philosophers) something like 80%+ turn out to be Ashkenazi Jews, and the most senior of whom hold dual American-Israeli citizenship. Remember that the Jewish population of the USA amounts to less than 2% of the total.

Clearly, all these Police State changes are happening with the blessing of the EU, so I have indeed remained on-topic.

If David David really abdicated and didn't stand in the by election, would labour put up a candidate?

Conservatives could then either embrace Davis cause, or turn their backs on him and drive him to UKIP.

Either way, if Davis is not going to be in a future cabinet, but just be some kind of heroic pundit, all that matters is the size of his platform - might be bigger as the "man of principle who even gavce up his seat" than as the back bencher who beat Miss Mad Cow.

Although the Queen can give Royal Assent in person, this has not happened since 1854. The Queen's agreement to give her Assent to a Bill is automatic. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1707-08 when Queen Anne refused her Assent to a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland.

How is Royal Assent announced?

When Royal Assent has been given to a Bill, the Speaker in the Commons and the Lord Speaker in the Lords announce the Royal Assent at a suitable break in each House's proceedings

Should not confuse President of a Republic with a Constitutional Monarchy

There is one positive outcome. Wy wife hates Prince Charles following his treatment of Diana (thst's her view, not mine btw). She is not alone in saying that he should never become King.Beware of what you pray for that it may come true.I predict that our Queen will be the last Monarch of this country. When she dies, they will remove the "DG" from the coinage (it means Deus Gratia (sic) "by the grace of God". Charles has already said that he will be a "defender of faith" instead of "defender of the faith. So we can take the FD off the coin as well. There's nothing to stop us being absorbed into the EUSSR then.To think that our Queen signed the death warrant of hundreds of years of sovereign rule. Did she really know what she was doing? Can we put it down to a senior moment?Will history regard her as the monarch that lost an empire?So sad.

"And if not, why does she not follow the example of David Davis and abdicate on a point of principle, and thereby precipitate a constitutional crisis, the outcome of which would be a referendum to let the people decide?"

Your Grace,

I much reverberate Dave's comment above; had she abdicated, the confirmed Europhile Charles would've expidited the entire process - her point of principle would be next to meaningless; something which NuLabour are attempting to do by not fielding a candidate for David Davis' place. This is not an option for The Queen - we dont field "candidates" for our monarchy, it is inherited.

your grace there is hope stuart wheelers high court action is to heard next week , gordon brown was asked to delay any ratification (done already by EU leaders) , if he had not done so the high court would have met in emergency session.

i think he is in trouble now , as this bill was not debated properly !!

as for her majesty , all i can say is that she must a very great degree of faith in the people of her own country to know what the right thing is , i have never seen so many people who feel that they have been decieved by the governments bullying , whilst at times democracy may seem weak , but only if it is corrupted to the extent that this labour government have .

looking at europe the more i see of it , the more happy i am with our own arrangements

Your GraceI recall that the late King Baudouin of the Belgians, a devoted Catholic but a constitutional monarch was faced with a dilemma some years ago when his conscience would not let him sign into law an abortion liberalisation bill. So he declared himself temporarily unfit to reign while the bill was passed by members of the government. (He must have been advised by a Jesuit)

But the queen obviously has no such qualms, or feels she must sign every bill. If so what is the point of her office?

I suspect that Belgium's Constitution is very different from that in Britain, in part because it is a fake country manufactured in the 1815 period with a German prince made King....I doubt very much that Queen Victoria would have had her own personal fiefdom in The Congo as did King Leopold....that again is a mjor difference between a Parliament which has a monarch as figleaf and a presidency

Because of his religious convictions, Baudouin asked the Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law ([1]). The Government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on April 4, 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfills the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (April 5, 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again. (It is a point of contention whether Baudouin abdicated for two days so as not to have to approve the law, while still allowing abortions to be legalised in Belgium, or whether he was merely suspended for the day.)

Re: "And furthermore, who lies behind the EU Commission, for mark my words, that cabal is not driving this project! There is a darker force steering the western world to a very dark future, unless something is done to halt this runaway train." mission impossible, above.

The British Royal Family has been enthusiastic members of the Bilderberg assemblies since they were first formed. Prince Philip is reported to be a regular attender. It is no surprise that the family are indulging their wish for "greater" things, to the detriment of the people they have been charged by God to rule over.

Oh shit. Here we go again we have those on medication (more likely not) peddling their favourite conspiracy theories. Bilderberg. Common Purpose et al.

Now I WAS at a VERY Senior level in a Local Authority. I later did consultancy work for the Government AND industry.What I CAN say, without doubt, is that whenever two or more meet in MY name (be it CP Bilderberg whatever) there WILL be trouble.ABsolutely certain and NO I have NOT undertaken CP training! The VERY idea that xx thousand people CAN pursue a common goal IS frankly nonsense. UNLESS they ARE under orders and that will only work in time of war or Dictatorship. We MAY be moving towards the latter but we ain't quite there yet!!!!During WW2 soldiers DID largely manage that but really only for THEIR and their immediate colleagues personal survival. Back home the greedy shits NOT fighting were STILL going on strike as though the war weren't even happening!!!

CHECK the history!!!

CP. Well I cannot at all find evidence that CP is subversive.It may well have some "quaint" and unfortunate expressions of purpose. And hey if THEY really WERE subversive then WHY do they need to advertise? Or is that “double-bluff”? Well I’m sure some of you will think so It may well be questionable in its charity status but I rather think it IS about money - for the founders and operatives and THAT is where the profit goes. It really should NOT have Charity status. It is a business pure and simple. A successful one which hit a successful formula,BEYOND that. Well, unlike MOST of the lunatic critics I HAVE researched it: I HAVE attended and arranged Management Development programmes for many years. CP is NO different from most but appears to have found an attractive formula - for now. Such formulas come into fashion and then retreat. CP has had a lifespan better than most. IN FACT it appears to use the techniques of a very successful Welsh trainer - Boyce -who I met and who presented some very disturbing but effective “exercises”. In fact sounds like CP!!!Julia Middleton, who I have NEVER met or corresponded with IS an HR professional so I'd expect someone from THAT background (same as mine in part) to "nail" what might be a successful programme. Maybe I AM naive but I rather think Commander Gerrish might have "lost it" and set up a VERY false “Red October” witch-hunt. I may correspond with Julia to see if she would offer me complementary courses so that I could evaluate and report. NO use to me now since I’m retired,

Bilderberg? Well MUCH smaller than the claimed 25000 CP people. AND comprises "hefty' people. THEY might agree because they ARE about profit mainly. But even THEY will have disagreements. THEIR power though depends on those they employ. MANY will conform for financial reasons but some, always, will decamp on principle AND blow the whistle.

Finally Her Majesty. Well she IS only a Constitutional Monarch. A Monarch who gives the UK some standing in the World AND attracts tourism. In effect just a figurehead and ABOVE politics.

And NEVER forget she IS the Monarch of Scotland Australia and Canada, perhaps still NZ, and quite a few other countries AND the head of the Commonwealth. A UK President would NEVER be acceptable as Head of the Commonwealth or other countries. Her Majesty gives US unique status

Being a Constitutional Monarch gives her duties but VERY LITTLE power.I DID study Constitution in my degree. I may be rusty. I THINK that the Queen CAN refuse to sign but it is a given that if EVER she did that then the Monarchy would be eliminated by Parliament/ So, poor soul she has LITTLE choice.Of ANY of the Monarchs in the last 100 years I think Elizabeth WOULD be the one to rebel – but she IS now rather old and may well be worrying for her successors. She DOES have family you know!!Perhaps the opportunity has passed. Would YOU expect YOUR very elderly Grandmother to take such momentous decisions. I think not and hey I would NOT swap MY life for hers however much money she has. The Royal Family are in a virtual prison. Daily grind until death. Her subjects can retire and do as they wish. SHE cannot. Think about that you Republicans. (I admit to being a Royalist)

Then again THIS COUNTRY NEEDS An Oliver Cromwell to clear the Commonsand start again!!! TOO much sleaze, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. HANG Em all = and RE-USE Traitors Gate!!! Now wouldn’t THAT be a tourist trap? AND an example to the World.

Your Grace, apart from respectfully agreeing with Voyager's wise words, I have a couple of further points.

1. Whilst Your Grace is correct in identifying the Treaty of Maastricht as the point when the Queen became an EU citizen, you are incorrect in stating that by this Treaty "this Court [i.e. the European Court of Justice]was confirmed in authority over her courts". Nor is it the case that the subjugation of English law to EU law derives from the Treaty of Lisbon. The supremacy of both EU law and, consequently, the ECJ, flow from the European Communities Act 1972 by which we joined the EC on 1st January 1973 (see in particular sections 2(1) and 2(4)of that Act). It has been accepted since the 'Factortame' judgement of the Court of Appeal in 1988 that UK legislation that is incompatible with EU law must inevitably be disregarded by the courts insofar as it is incompatible.

2. As regards British constitutional law the only area where there is a conflict (so far as I am aware) is the wording of the Coronation Oath, as Your Grace points out. The Treaty of Lisbon (aka the EU Constitution)does not change the bubordinate position of English law or those statutes that form the written part of our uncodified constitution: that change was effected by the ECA 1972.

3. The ECA 1972 has had three further effects on our constitutional law: first it is at least a quasi-exception to the principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors by 'entrenching' legislation so as to protect it from future repeal. Whilst there is nothing in law to prevent Parliament from repealing the ECA subject to its usual procedures, the ECA is 'superior' to all other statutes in that it provides for the supremacy of EU law; secondly, and possibly uniquely, the ECA 1972 is immune from the principle that later legislation need not expressly repeal earlier incompatible legislation but automatically repeals the earlier legislation through the doctrine of 'implied repeal'; thirdly from the time of the 'Factortame' judgement of the Court of Appeal in 1988 it is settled law that if legislation is incompatible with EU legislation British judges are bound to disregard the domestic legislation in favour of the 'superior' EU legislation.

All or much of this would have been perfectly clear to those who drafted the bill that became the ECA 1972 and took part in the Parliamentary debates leading to its enactment.

I might add too that those politicians who whined about how the 'Common Market', membership of which they enthusiastically supported in 1972 and again in the absurd Wilsonite referendum of 1975, was deviously changed by a satanic cabal in Brussels into an all-embracing 'ever closer political and economic union' failed to read/understand the Treaty of Rome 1957 where such long term objectives are set out. Apart from closing more grammar schools than any previous or future Education Secretary, one wonders what on earth Mr Heath's Education Secretary (a Mrs Margaret Thatcher)was up to in the early 1970s?

Despite the BRD being a key signatory to that Treaty, it was still under military occupation, still under psychological duress following the events of 1945 to 1949 (brought on by the genocidal policies of Washington), its Federal Constitution had been drafted by the occupying powers, and its leader dubiously elected.

You seem to have a good grasp of EU constitutional issues. In response to the questions I raised --- see my FOUR comments posted in the above linked thread [they begin about 40% down from top] --- might you have information that could throw some much needed light onto this vexing issue?

And if so, would you be prepared to share them with us, here at Cranmer?

bewick [21 June 2008 03:05] ... an interesting and useful contribution (if I may say so) with much food for thought ... but please go easy in future with all those UPPER/lower case transitions. They detract the reader's eyes from the good points you are making.

I agree that attaching a conspiracy theory to the EU's 'Common Purpose' is overblown. Although I would posit that the whole Human Resources industry has been a tool to further the "Femino / New Labour / Third Way" political project.

HR has been a channel for taking Fascism into the work place, and includes the sinister Diversity Training, along with other Fascist legislation, such as "ethnic quotas." Diversity Training imposes speech and thought codes on employees with the ultimate sanction of dismissal.

It is no accident that about 80% of Human Resource managers are women, and that its origins lie in that most hegemonic political matriarch: the United States of America.

Some people obsess with the Bilderbergs because they have not yet done their homework. In fact, the Bilderberg meetings are part of a much wider network of high-level conspirators, which include:

BilderbergsTri-Lateral CommissionCouncil on Foreign Relations (CFR)DavosFreemasonry (above the 3rd level)RosicruciansJesuitsKabbalistsAmerican Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)Anti-Defamation League (ADL) --->> This is a highly fascist and elitist organization; it should be closed down, and its leadership imprisoned for continuously bearing false witness and stirring endless political/ethnic agitation. Project for the New American Century (PNAC)The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.ETC.

--- NB: Wilson is the only U.S. president buried in Washington, D.C. This is because he was blackmailed into giving the Banksters and Zionists what they wanted: The Federal Reserve and US entry into WW-I to facilitate the Balfour Agreement, and naturally, they remain eternally grateful for handing over the reigns of the Republic to them. Out of a long list of crooked, despotic, or financially compromised 20th century US Presidents, it is Woodrow Wilson who got the ball rolling. The demise of the Western World starts with his highly compromised presidency. Today, there exist scholarships in his name to continue 'his' (read East European Jewish) legacy.

Oh, and let us not forget the FABIAN Society, to which most New Labourites are affiliated. India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, was a Fabian and most of the political advise he received during his tenure was from Fabians in Britain. This is why the promise of newly independent India was destroyed in just 20 years.

So, it is folly to think our troubles can be attributed just to the Bilderberg meetings and attendees. We are being affronted by a spider's web.

P.S. My list is not all inclusive. There are other bodies I could have added; requiring me to check my archives, but I cannot spare the additional time. The central message is already made clear.

Dave at 13.13 is correct when he commented, "that our Queen signed the death warrant of hundreds of years of sovereign rule".

Further, as has been noted across many forums they are a substantial number of people who will not accept this EU dictatorship.

The 42 day detention law that was rammed through Parliament recently is not about foreign terrorists; it is will be used against the indigenous population.

The following principles and laws are in explicit stated in the EU constitutional Article footnotes and associated documents. It is unfortunate that the devil is in the detail, but it is there.

Indigenous populace who dissent against the EU are considered traitors.

The death penalty will be re-introduced into the EU.

The EU police will have the jurisdiction to enter our shores, take precedence over our indigenous police authorities and use whatever force necessary to quell the ‘riot’. The EU police are an armed force.

When our Queen signed this, she also signed the death warrant of 10's of thousands of these islands people too.

For me, this is unforgivable act. By her own action she has placed herself in the gutter with the politicians.

This may throw some light into this whole sickening affair.www.TPUC.ORG has been looking into English Common laws etc.Fabians linked to common purpose.

Part of the rules laid down by Common Purpose are to hold meetings to Chatham House rules. which simply means "...nothing discussed in said meeting can be discussed in any way, outside of said meeting..." Now Chatham House is also the head quarters of the Fabian Society. John Prescott is a Fabian. Now Common Purpose's sole objective is basically to: Infiltrate, Destroy then Recreate in a Fabianistic way.

Please note:

Common Purpose has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA's (Regional Development Agencies).

Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution. Jean de Menezes was one of the innocents who died as a result. Her shoot to kill policy still stands today.

You might be interested to know that the man who taught the Queen about Constitutional Law was a Fabian by the name of Sir Henry Martin. Sir Henry went to Balliol College Oxford with Arthur Toynbee (another Fabian) who in turn taught the late Prime Minister Edward Heath. (please note: Oxford University promotes and teaches PPE. Blair, Cameron and numerous other top MP's have degree's in PPE.)

Arthur Toynbee said at the 4th meeting of the conference for: International Institutions for the Scientific Study of International Relations held June 8th - 10th 1931 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

"...I will not prophesise, I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to rest this mysterious political force called Sovereignty, out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands. because to impugn the sovereign of the local national states of the world is still heresy, for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps, not quite burnt at the stake but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of the local Sovereign can still use it's teeth and claw when it is bought to bay..."

The purpose of these conferences was to: by the leap of nations international cooperation to affiliate cooperation between institutions of international affairs of different countries.

I recommend the site it has some excellent pieces of knowledge. it started my search on Fabianism much to my horror these people are behind the evil that is the EUSSR and the ruination of this country.Blair was chairman of the fabian society. when elected his cabinet were young fabians plus the old ones that we all knew. Straw Short Brown and Sarah his wife on and on Fabians.Their coat of arms; A WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING.Aims, transformation. change. reconstruct society.Fabians feed from capitalism excrete communism.Infiltration of the other parties and countries.At any one time 200 in Westminster.

Just an outline of fabianism can be read here.http://www.smeems.net/fam/gov/loc/64AAPCN7.htm

John Harris earlier this year became freeman of England although i doubt this to be the case John also assumed the Queen is kept a kind of prisoner under threat of being thrown off the throne.He has accused the Palace of this in his communications with the palace on view at the site.

The Monarch may refuse to sign a bill and may even dismiss a Government that commands a majority in the house as will be recalled by the dismissal of Australian PM Gough Whitlam by the Monarchs Governor-General Sir John Kerr in 1975.

http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/

That time the Monarch(s representative ) got it right and the subsequent election vindicated the dismissal. Had he got it wrong, Australia would now be a Republic.

Our Queen should have done the same with this dreadful not-a-treaty and likewise She would have been vindicated with the outcome of the subsequent constitutional crisis.She chose not to, how sad.

some bloke [22 June 2008 03:28] ... Her Majesty's inaction would make more sense if you assume the Queen refused to initiate a constitutional crisis, because she could not identify any political allies in Parliament. Where in Westminster was the stomach or the vision? Do you think that effeminate little cretin David Cameron would or could have led his Conservative Party into the breach? The Liberal Party has never recovered from being led by the virtuoso 'Pink Oboe' player, Jeremy Thorpe.

Her Majesty needs visible allies, and the three main parties have all been "got at." In any case, half of the English Aristocracy inter-bred with Jewish Banker and Trader families between the late 18th and early 20th centuries. This is one reason, amongst many, why we find ourselves in this bl**dy mess.

A convention needs to be convened, indeed, an alternative Parliament needs to be convened, and organized by all the peripheral independence parties working together: BNP, UKIP, English National, and David Davis' team, in the form of an alliance. Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists could be sent an invitation, in advance, to attend the 2nd such convention. The inaugural needs to be an ENGLISH affair.

Independent thinkers and academics should be invited (Peter Hitchens, Roger Scruton, etc) along with all freedom-loving bloggers and members of the public. Suitable locations would be York, Chester, Cirencester, or the old capital of Wessex ... Winchester - site of England's original parliament.

All these constitutional matters, so brilliantly linked to by Anonymous [21 June 2008 21:46] above, could then be properly discussed and debated. Common strategies could then be identified and agreed. Of course, such meetings would be open to infiltration by Fabians, but if all attendees are properly scrutinized and identified, it should not be too much of a problem. Some meetings could be held in camera, others open to the National and International Press.

Members of the Sikh, Indian, Chinese, Polish, and Pakistani communities could also be invited to attend parts of such a convention, as observers. The Sikh community leadership is already sympathetic to the BNP. Because of their highly incriminating history, the Jewish community would have to be excluded ... at least until we learn to identify who amongst them are our real friends, and who are our crypto-enemies.

I am 100% certain there would also be thousands of people who would wish to attend from the USA. There are many over there who are looking to England for political leadership.

Once the ball is rolling, "football stadiums" would need to be booked to house all those wanting to attend future conventions.

I formally appeal to anyone from the BNP, UKIP, and English National, and David Davis's Campaign, reading these comments, to give this proposal very serious thought. We need an alliance ... the Conservative Party (as we knew it) is dead, buried, and definitely part of the problem, not the solution.

We need to move forward and embrace new paradigms predicated upon knowledge and truth.

Their policy was one of influencing all other political groups by infiltration and permeation. This policy has been aptly described as one of Sovietism by Stealth. The Fabian Society, which took its name from Fabius Cunctator, the Roman dictator who eventually defeated Hannibal as a result of a policy of gradualness, was launched in the winter of 1883-84 under the leadership of Professor Thomas Davidson, "an ethical Anarchist Communist". He was soon superseded by the Webbs and George Bernard Shaw, who played a dominant role in the Society for nearly half a century.

The policy of permeation soon started to bear fruit. Politicians of all parties were influenced. George Bernard Shaw has frankly described this policy: "Our propaganda is one of permeating - we urged our members to join the Liberal and Radical Associations in their district, or, if they preferred it, the Conservative Associations - we permeated the party organisations and pulled all the strings we could lay our hands on with the utmost adroitness and energy, and we succeeded so well that in 1888 we gained the solid advantage of a Progressive majority full of ideas that would never have come into their heads had not the Fabians put them there."

The essence of the Fabian's Soviet-by-Stealth programme was to exploit the natural tendency of all politicians, irrespective of label, to concentrate power. The Fabians set about influencing all politicians to support legislation which would so start centralising power that a process of delegation of power to a bureaucracy would become inevitable. Once the bureaucracy was empowered to make regulations and decrees having the force of law, responsible Parliamentary Government would be undermined, and the traditional Constitutional safeguards of the individual's rights destroyed.In other words, the Fabians set out deliberately to pervert the Parliamentary system.

And we can see how much success they have had!Author of Harry Potter friend of Browns wife also a Fabian.

When The Queen spoke of dark forces at work in this country perhaps she was making ref to Fabians?

Earlier (see above) I had posed a question to the contributor von Hayek [21 June 2008 04:26] ... regarding the legality of the BRD as of 1957 when it became a signatory to the Treaty of Rome.

It would appear I have found (thanks to the efforts and sacrifice of my source) a potentially explosive answer.

Perhaps those of you with far more legal knowledge than I might like to check the veracity of the following statement:

On 31 July 1973, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) was forced to concede the following ruling in regard to an upcoming treaty between the BRD and the communist DDR: "It remains the case that the German Reich survived the collapse of 1945 and did not cease to exist, neither through capitulation nor the exercise of foreign power in Germany on the part of the allies; it possesses today, as it always has, legal and judicial sovereignty, although as a State it is lacking in organisation. The BRD is not the legal successor of the German Reich."

For all you Europhobes out there, gnashing your teeth at the pantomime being conducted by the European Commission, surely this is the kind of ammunition you need to help you kill this project off?

Is this not a moment to delve into the archives in order to fill your flintlocks with powder?

If this statement is true and correct, then the Treaty of Rome is NULL and VOID and we can kill this monster dead no matter what Burrosso and his cronies thinks or does.

Being far too tired to concentrate i shall post Wednesday the rest of this article found earlier.This is an ongoing court case where for obvious reasons a news-blackout is in force.

The Parliament Act

In fact Edward VII had refused to pass the Parliament Act in 1910 and as such Asquith had to go to the country for a vote which he lost. A plan was devised to get this bill back, so he invited 40 Fabian Socialists and 82 Sien Fien to join his party in order to destroy the House of Lords which had been holding on to the fiscal prerogative and in so doing he set out to destroy the British Constitution.

The Parliament Act is actually illegal under the Constitution and the 1848 Treason and Felony Act, which states that neither House, Lords nor the Commons has power above the other. The 1911 Act altered the ‘fiscal power,’ which according to our Constitution cares for all taxpayers, as stated under the Petition of Right (part of the Constitution - No taxation without representation). This puts taxation illegally into the hands of the majority political party in the Commons, and without any amendment allowed from the House of Lords.

At the time of the French Revolution and the American Independence, political parties weren’t fixed as in the Masonic Constitution of America, which is based on the principal of divide and rule. Whereas in Britain, the British Constitution was made by the People for the People and the monarch holds them together according to our Constitutional laws. In relation to this fact, Elizabeth put forward to the judge the question of Brussels acting illegally under European Laws which invalidated the court itself. e.g. the 1988 Mercantile Shipping Act in relation to Spaniards fishing within the British 12 mile limit. Brussels overruled it and fined the British £300,000. In doing this Brussels claimed rights over our Sovereign and Parliament who had passed the Act. She pointed out to the court under this ruling it had no validity. At which point the judge shut her up and said, “I am under contract to make a liability order against you since the order allowed no exception.”

This is entirely against our constitutional laws. Elizabeth then asked for leave to appeal. The judge replied, “You can do what you like.”

Elizabeth explained to the judge that Queens Council has given her his opinion, “Technically under the Rules of Erskine May, it is stated the Automatic Assent, if not complied with, would invalidate ALL laws since 1911”.

Automatic Royal assent is not valid!What a lady she is and persecuted by the powers that be.Our constitution gives us all 100% protection.Elizabeth lives in Cumbria and has been supported mainly by donations she studied our constitution inside out!Imagine all laws in-valid since 1911 Thats'the BBC finished many taxes and the raft of laws passed recently that impose fines for virtually looking the wrong way?

1). You as the Council have the right to oppose or depose acts in Parliament.Under your oaths of allegiance, the laws in the Bill of Rights of 1689 make clear this country CANNOT be ruled by ANY foreign power: “No foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm.” They also added two codicils at the end of the Bill of Rights “Any amendments to the bill after the 23 October 1689 shall be void and not lawful, and this bill is for all time”.

2). This law and its oath are not subject to Parliament because they were given to Parliament by the People whose WILL is supreme over Parliament. This means Parliament may not allow any part of the aforementioned oath to be breached side-stepped or ignored. This Bill of Rights precludes and effectively forbids Parliament from passing any bill like the 1972 EEC Act, the Treaty of Rome or any other European legislation which gives them any say at all in the governance of England. It also precludes Parliament from passing any laws contrary to the spirit of this Bill of Rights.

Elizabeth Beckett; Her untold story and news black-out-Why?http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/beckett1-22-08.html

WHILE WE (and at every General Election since 1972) FILL PARLIAMENT WITH THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AND HAVE BEEN IN IT ALL THESE YEARS, CONTINUING WITH THE DEEPER AND MORE MEANINGFUL INTEGRATION INTO THE EU AND OUR QUEEN, (WHATEVER SHE WANTED TO DO) CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED. It was what THEY voted for, for a political Party that wants to remain in the EU, that has ratified every EU Treaty that they have come across WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE A REFERENDUM, A SAY ON THEIR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE OF GENERATIONS TO COME. Remember, it is US lot that have voted AND PAID THROUGH OUR TAXES to put these people in Parliament.

The row re MP's expenses was NOTHING compared to the treachery, and/or treason they have done to us and our Country. Now who are you going to blame? WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR? Maybe you opted out-didn't vote at all. I stupidly voted for the Conservatives, can you believe THAT? The people have great power when they do things together you know. MP's fear the people getting together, for they recognize the power of the people. Why do you think there are three Political Parties for you to choose from that WANT TO REMAIN IN THE EU? They give you a choice? Are you sure about that? They divide the people. They divide the people's votes. They divide the Country. So WHY are you voting for them?

Winston Churchill drew all the people together. The people all worked together. I know for I was THERE. It was in the interests of the Government to do so to save our country. NOW THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY ARE TO BE DIVIDED, NO MATTER WHICH OF THE THREE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES YOU VOTE FOR, or where you place your cross, if you place your vote against any one of the three major political Parties, you will remain in the EU. Not voting though, is not an option this next time, it really isn't. Make your vote count.. Give the other NEW party a chance that wants out of the EU. Only vote for one of the three major Parties if you want to remain in the EU. This may well be your last chance through a referendum cum election.

Her Majesty's trusted and loyal Government Ministers use the Royal Prerogative ratifying Treaties on her behalf. The same Royal Prerogative they have given to the EU to use to ratify Treaties on our behalf in the Lisbon Treaty-Article 47. Treason? You decide. The people did not give their permission to ratify such a treacherous Treaty.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)